20 SA 07.2023 JUDG..odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO. 07 OF 2023 APPELLANT Ori. Defendant on R.A. :- Santosh S/o Madhukar Gohokkar, Aged about 38 Years, Occupation: Agriculturist, R/o. & P.O. Marki (Bu.) Tq. Zari – Jamni, Dist. Yavatmal. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENT Ori. Plaintiff on R.A. :- Paresh S/o Gajananrao Gaidhan, Aged about 41 Years, Occupation: Business, C/o. Adv. Nilesh Mahadeorao Choudhari, R/o Lalit Niwas, Ward No.2, Ravi Nagar, At P.O. & Tq. Wani, Dist-Yavatmal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Yash Kullarwar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. A. A. Dhawas, Advocate for the Respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 12.02.2026 J U D G M E N T : 1) Heard finally with consent of learned advocates for the respective parties. 2) The present appeal arises out of a concurrent decree for specific performance of contract initially passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Zari Jamni in Regular Civil Suit No.42 of 2013, which came to be confirmed by the learned 2026:BHC-NAG:77 20 SA 07.2023 JUDG..odt 2 District Judge-2 Kelapur, Dist. Yavatmal by dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2016 arising out of the said decree. 3) The appellant is the original defendant and respondent is the original plaintiff. Hereinafter the parties will be referred as “plaintiff” and “defendant”. 4) The suit is a suit for specific performance of contract. The parties had admittedly entered into an agreement of sale with respect to the suit property on 15.03.2011 for a consideration of Rs.96,000/-. Initially, 28.02.2012 was the date stipulated for completing the sale transaction. However, the time frame for execution of the sale deed was extended twice, lastly up to 05.05.2013. 5) Out of the agreed sale consideration of Rs.96,000/- the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.85,000/- to the defendant and Rs.11,000/- remained outstanding. The evidence on record, as is appreciated by both the learned Courts will suggest that the time for execution of sale deed was extended at the request of defendant, who was indisposed for quite sometime. 6) The learned Courts have recorded finding that 05.05.2013, being a Sunday, the plaintiff had remained personally present in the office of concerned Sub-registrar on the following 20 SA 07.2023 JUDG..odt 3 date, i.e., on 06.05.2013. Around 90% of the sale consideration is proved to be paid. The evidence on record conclusively establishes the aspect of readiness and willingness on the part of plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. 7) The only contention that is raised by the learned advocate for the appellant is that the plaint does not contain a pleading that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Having perused the pleadings in paragraphs 4 to 8 of the plaint, I am not inclined to accept the said contention. 8) The plaintiff has pleaded about the agreement, payment of around 90% of agreed consideration, request by defendants seeking extension of time and his presence in the office of Sub- registrar as also issuance for notice of specific performance of contract. All these averments, read together, clearly make out a case of readiness and willingness as contemplated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. 9) Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed as not disclosing any substantial question of law. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) Tanmay...